Lead counsel in Planned Parenthood video case switches firms

Amy L. Bomse, lead counsel in a civil suit brought by Planned Parenthood against anti-abortion activists accused of invasion of privacy for filming the organization’s staff, has changed firms from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP to Rogers Joseph O’Donnell PC but continues as head of the plaintiff’s case.

“I became a shareholder at Rogers Joseph on 4/29. ... R JO is now co-counsel with A&P on the case,” Bomse, a former partner at Arnold & Porter, said in an email Wednesday.

According to a change of address notice filed with the court in late April, Bomse will continue to represent Planned Parenthood through her new firm, Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, while attorney Sharon D. Mayo and other attorneys from Arnold & Porter will also continue to represent Planned Parenthood.

As with many suits involving large litigation teams and multi-year proceedings, both the plaintiff’s and defense teams have seen attorneys come and go. Since the suit was filed in 2016, at least three other attorneys originally with Arnold & Porter withdrew when they changed firms. Bomse, however, appears to be the only one to continue with the suit despite her move.

Brought by Planned Parenthood, the suit claims two anti-abortion activists who identify themselves as undercover journalists, David Robert Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress, surreptitiously recorded private conversations with Planned Parenthood staff without their permission. After disguising themselves in order to gain access to and record meetings with Plain Parenthood staff, the two activists allegedly released edited video of the meetings, which appear to show staff members discussing the sale of fetal tissue for profit. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 16-CV00236 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 2016).

In a writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court on April 1, the center argued Planned Parenthood was using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to pursue “what essentially was a state law defamation claim without pleading it,” thus violating the defendants’ First Amendment rights. The center, represented by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and lead counsel Charles LiMandri of LiMandri and Jonna LLP, argued Planned Parenthood had adequately pleaded damages other than defamation damages at the district court level, in the form of voluntary costs incurred to enhance corporate security, and was attempting to preclude journalists from scrutinizing the organization in the future.

Planned Parenthood claims the videos are misleadingly edited and have led to staff members experiencing a “dramatic increase in the threats, harassment, and criminal activities targeting. ... Planned Parenthood health centers” following their release. The organization claims the video campaign exposed clinics, staff, and patients to unfair and damaging publicity, which disrupted patient care and required costly measures to ensure safety at the clinics.

Both sides are expected to file motions for summary judgment before July 17, when U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick will hear arguments in San Francisco.